Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2008
Prospective comparison of the diagnostic utility of a standard event monitor versus a "leadless" portable ECG monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scherr Daniel, Dalal Darshan, Henrikson Charles A, Spragg David D, Berger Ronald D, Calkins Hugh, Cheng Alan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Current ambulatory ECG monitoring systems are limited in their ability to diagnose patients with palpitations. The aim of this prospective study was to compare a new "leadless" ambulatory monitor with a standard event monitor in the evaluation of patients with palpitations.
METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56 +/- 16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a "leadless" monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices.
RESULTS: All 18 individuals were compliant with the "leadless" monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p = 0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the "leadless" ECG monitor (8.8 +/- 9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12 +/- 8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p = NS). The "leadless" ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p = NS).
CONCLUSION: The "leadless" ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.
METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (11 female, 56 +/- 16 years) referred for evaluation of palpitations were provided with both a standard event monitor and a "leadless" monitor for 30 days. They were asked to record episodes of palpitations with both monitoring devices.
RESULTS: All 18 individuals were compliant with the "leadless" monitor for the 30-day period while only 14 (78%) patients were compliant with the standard event monitor (p = 0.10). During a combined monitoring period of 563 days, 159 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the "leadless" ECG monitor (8.8 +/- 9.7 per patient, range 1-35) and 169 symptomatic episodes were recorded with the event monitor (12 +/- 8.3 per patient, range 1-33) (p = NS). The "leadless" ECG monitor recorded arrhythmias in 13 of 18 patients (72%) and the standard event monitor recorded arrhythmias in 8 of 14 patients (57%) (p = NS).
CONCLUSION: The "leadless" ECG monitor is associated with high patient compliance and results in high quality ECG recordings. The diagnostic yield of this monitoring system is equivalent to a standard event monitor.